Why would the Scripture say that Christ is to reign forever, if his reign is only to be for a mere "watch in the night"?

Jesus rules for an age and then He hands over His kingdom to Father.

Logged

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

A 30 AD date is reasonable IMO. It also fits in with the information Paul gave about the time when he was converted which tends to support an early date for the crucifixion rather than one of the later dates.

What verses are you refering to?

Acts 9, 11:30, 12:23, Galatians 1:15 - 2:9

Herod Agrippa died 44 A.D. The problem is to fit the 14 years that Paul mentioned in Galatians 2:1 into the period from his conversion, to his visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 11:30. This visit was associated with a revelation, Acts 11:28. And it evidently preceded the death of Herod, described in the following chapter. If the crucifixion was later than 30 A.D., the 14 years would not fit, and that becomes a problem.

Doug

That's the sort of info I like Indeed, many sources claim a 44AD death (March)But some 43 ADhttp://doig.net/NTC04.htmland died on the fifth day. Agrippa I died of his illness on September 28, 43 CE (43T).There have been other suggestions for dating Agrippa's death.However, these festivals every fifth year would have fallen on March 5, 42 or 47 CE, not in 43 or 44 CE.

According to Daniel R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: the last king of Judaea pp. 109-110, the games were initiated 10/9 BC and they were held every 4th year. Josephus says "every fifth year" but Schwartz explained this as ancient 'inclusive' parlance, "the equivalent of our 'quadrennial.' Thus, for example, the Olympic Games too could be so described." [Note 11, p. 109]

43/44 AD was the 14th celebration of the Caesarean games. Schwartz says "In summary, it appears that Agrippa died between September/October (Tishri) 43 and January/Febrruary 44, and most probably at the very beginning of this period, in the course of, or shortly after, a Caesarean festival founded by his granddfather in honor of Augustus." [p. 111.]

I still have problems fully understanding it.

Galatians 1:11-21: Paul writes that he was converted. Went to Arabia and later back to Damascus. Three years later Pauls goes to Jerusalem. Then he goes to Syria.Galatians 2:1 14 year later. So it already totals of 17 years.

Saul (still unconverted) helped stoning Stephan. That even usually is dated 34-35AD.Obviously 14 years (or 17) later is way beyond Agrippa's death in 44AD.----Paul's conversion is usually dated 33-36AD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle----So....a] Paul's conversion seems to be years after Jesus death.b] What verse mentions the 14th year of Paul was Agrippa's year of death?

Logged

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Doug

Why would the Scripture say that Christ is to reign forever, if his reign is only to be for a mere "watch in the night"?

Jesus rules for an age and then He hands over His kingdom to Father.

1 Corinthians 15:22-24For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Paul connects the resurrection from the dead with men becoming subject to God. This idea is also present in Revelation 20:4, where those who are beheaded reign with Christ, and for them, Satan is bound and cast into the bottomless pit. Beheading is a figure of being subject to Christ.

The idea that the Lord has to rule on earth for 1,000 years, at Jerusalem, is contrary to the Scriptures, that say he is to reign in heaven, until all his enemies are subject to him. The apostle Peter said to the Jews:

Acts 3:20-21And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

And Jesus himself said,

Luke 20:42-43And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

This is also quoted in Hebrews:

Hebrews 10:12-13But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

How could Jesus be sitting upon a throne in the earthly Jerusalem, when Satan is loosed out of his prison and goes out to deceive the nations of the world, to gather them together to battle against the saints, at the end of thousand years?

It says Jesus remains in heaven, and at God's right hand, "till his enemies be made his footstool." The Premillennialists make these Scriptures contradict. Their interpretation of the thousand years in Revelation 20 is flawed. They view these scriptures with "eyes like the eyes of a man," a human viewpoint, not the divine one. "Eyes like the eyes of a man" are a characteristic of the "little horn" of Daniel 7. They misinterpret the prophecy of Revelation 20, as they believe in an earthly, carnal, visible kingdom, where ethnic Jews are doted on by Gentiles.

In fact, the prophecy says the saints who are beheaded reign with Christ for a thousand years, not that Christ's reign is for a thousand years upon the earth. Christ's reign is in heaven; those who reign with him "sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." [Ephesians 2:6] This is during the lives of the saints in this age, not in a future Millennium. It is called a thousand years because it is a "watch in the night." The present age is called "night," but the saints who reign with Christ are "children of the day."

A 30 AD date is reasonable IMO. It also fits in with the information Paul gave about the time when he was converted which tends to support an early date for the crucifixion rather than one of the later dates.

What verses are you refering to?

Acts 9, 11:30, 12:23, Galatians 1:15 - 2:9

Herod Agrippa died 44 A.D. The problem is to fit the 14 years that Paul mentioned in Galatians 2:1 into the period from his conversion, to his visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 11:30. This visit was associated with a revelation, Acts 11:28. And it evidently preceded the death of Herod, described in the following chapter. If the crucifixion was later than 30 A.D., the 14 years would not fit, and that becomes a problem.

Doug

That's the sort of info I like Indeed, many sources claim a 44AD death (March)But some 43 ADhttp://doig.net/NTC04.htmland died on the fifth day. Agrippa I died of his illness on September 28, 43 CE (43T).There have been other suggestions for dating Agrippa's death.However, these festivals every fifth year would have fallen on March 5, 42 or 47 CE, not in 43 or 44 CE.

According to Daniel R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: the last king of Judaea pp. 109-110, the games were initiated 10/9 BC and they were held every 4th year. Josephus says "every fifth year" but Schwartz explained this as ancient 'inclusive' parlance, "the equivalent of our 'quadrennial.' Thus, for example, the Olympic Games too could be so described." [Note 11, p. 109]

43/44 AD was the 14th celebration of the Caesarean games. Schwartz says "In summary, it appears that Agrippa died between September/October (Tishri) 43 and January/Febrruary 44, and most probably at the very beginning of this period, in the course of, or shortly after, a Caesarean festival founded by his granddfather in honor of Augustus." [p. 111.]

I still have problems fully understanding it.

Galatians 1:11-21: Paul writes that he was converted. Went to Arabia and later back to Damascus. Three years later Pauls goes to Jerusalem. Then he goes to Syria.Galatians 2:1 14 year later. So it already totals of 17 years.

Galatians 1:15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Galatians 2:1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

When Paul wrote "fourteen years later" in 2:1, he evidently refers back to the time of his conversion mentioned in 1:15. It means 14 years after his conversion. And he counts inclusively; the year he was converted was the first year, and the year he returned to Jerusalem the 14th, both were partial years counted as a year.

Saul (still unconverted) helped stoning Stephan. That even usually is dated 34-35AD.

Some of the preterists say that, but it is misguided IMO. There is no date mentioned in Luke's account. It could have been in 30 AD, or 31 AD. The New Testament does not say that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 ended in the first century. That suggests they did not, or else the apostles would have noticed.

Obviously 14 years (or 17) later is way beyond Agrippa's death in 44AD.----Paul's conversion is usually dated 33-36AD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle----So....a] Paul's conversion seems to be years after Jesus death.b] What verse mentions the 14th year of Paul was Agrippa's year of death?

Paul's conversion must have been very soon after the crucifixion, within about a year or two, IMO. His visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11:30 was before the death of Herod, Acts 12:1. It seems to be the visit mentioned in Galatians 2:1-2, as a "revelation" is connected with the visit in Acts 11, and also in Galatians 2:2.

I have a simple question, all the great information (and it is a lot) on a "rapture," or "caught up" or "harpazō " is there any proof of this phenomenon taking place in the natural? Or is this a Charismatic and Fundamentalist interruption and assumption that this event will happen?

Holding my breath

Logged

Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.

Doug

At the end of the first two "woes" described in Revelation 9, John writes, "And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts." [Vs 20-21]

The two woes, the scorpion-locusts and the great army of horses and horsemen, did not cause the world to repent. What does that imply about those two woes? Perhaps they are symbolic descriptions of people who seeking to accomplish that; the first woe, by threats of unending infernal torment and hell fire directed at unbelievers, and the second, by their "fiery preaching" and flawed interpretations of prophecy, represented by the tails which were like serpents, having heads. Tails are connected to prophets that teach lies, in Isaiah 9:15. Horses are symbolic of people with no understanding, Psalm 32:9.

So all the threats, and the missionary efforts of various denominations, and religious ministries, and societies, and all the disputing about theology, does not lead to the hoped-for revival, and the repentance that would result in lasting peace. Why does John tell us that, at this point in his prophecy? It seems to set things up for the third woe, which is the seventh trumpet, described in chapter 11. Perhaps this is the woe that accomplishes what the others could not.

It involves the resurrection of the saints, those that are written in the book of life, raised up at the last trump. Their mission is stated in Jude 1:14-15, "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

This seems to say that they will bring about the repentance that the first two woes failed to accomplish.

You guys are really into the books and theological time tables ain't cha ? Ya all got any thing that is substantial and solid or do you guys just deal in supposition? Of course this is only my opinion>

Logged

Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.

You guys are really into the books and theological time tables ain't cha ? Ya all got any thing that is substantial and solid or do you guys just deal in supposition? Of course this is only my opinion>

Luke 3:1-21 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.

Why are all those persons mentioned?

Luke 18 Once when Zechariah's division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God23 When his time of service was completed, he returned home.24 After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and for five months remained in seclusion.Why is that event dated?

Why are none Hebrew rulers mentioned in the OT?

Logged

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

I have a simple question, all the great information (and it is a lot) on a "rapture," or "caught up" or "harpazō " is there any proof of this phenomenon taking place in the natural? Or is this a Charismatic and Fundamentalist interruption and assumption that this event will happen?

Holding my breath

Too late in the day for me (almost 5am.) So...just to mention a poorly translated verse to answer you. "The kingdom of God suffereth violence and the violent take (harpazo) it by force." Take here is the one N.T. example of harpazo being used concerning human activity. Men forcibly seize (harpazo) the kingdom. They possess (harpazo) it by force. If a gang of pirates came into town and, took by force whatever they desired as their own possession, this would be an examle of the use of the word harpazo.

Logged

I went to church; but, the Church wasn't on the program! JESUS WANTS HIS BODY BACK!! MEET WITHOUT HUMAN HEADSHIP!!!

I have a simple question, all the great information (and it is a lot) on a "rapture," or "caught up" or "harpazō " is there any proof of this phenomenon taking place in the natural? Or is this a Charismatic and Fundamentalist interruption and assumption that this event will happen?

Holding my breath

Many saw that the RCC persecution of dissidents (later called Protestants) throughout the Church Age was the persecution of the saints portrayed in the book of Revelation. It was commonly believed that the Papal system itself was "Antichrist," the "little horn" coming out of the great iron (Roman) beast in Daniel 7:20.

The Roman Church was, of course, stung by this criticism. They could not deny their policy of burning dissidents at the stake, for this was openly discussed even by Roman bishops, cardinals, and the popes themselves.

Neither could they deny the fact that the Roman Church was an extension of the Roman Empire, for the Church assumed power when the old Roman government fell in 476 A.D. The Protestant reformers were quick to point out the Papal boast of having the power to overrule the precepts of the apostles and of Jesus Christ Himself. These papal decrees were a perfect match with what Daniel wrote about the "little horn" in Dan. 7:20, " that horn [governmental power] which had eyes and a mouth uttering great boasts." But what about for example Tabernacles.....?

To deflect all that criticism a Spanish Jesuit wrote a book that places the rapture in the future. That way it's impossible that RCC is the beast system.Regardless how good or bad the RCC is it's not a church in the Biblical definition. congregation, not the organization or the building.

One of the main flaws of many "theory builders" is that they have little knowledge of the Jewish feasts. And if they do they dismiss them as "done away" laws.But in reality the 3 harvest feasts are 3 prophesies of His coming. The first one Passover everybody knows about (under the pagan name Easter).That was His first coming.YLT1 Thessalonians 415 for this to you we say in the word of the Lord, that we who are living--who do remain over to the presence of the Lord--may not precede those asleep,16 because the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first,17 then we who are living, who are remaining over, together with them shall be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in air, and so always with the Lord we shall be;

The verse shows an order. First the dead and then (next) those who are alive. The big question is when is "next"? 1 second later? A day? A month? A year?...Many have a opinion on that. But based on what? Doctrine or a bunch of verses?

Meet (in Greek) means 'meet and return with an escort'.YLTMatthew 251 `Then shall the reign of the heavens be likened to ten virgins, who, having taken their lamps, went forth to meet the bridegroom;2 and five of them were prudent, and five foolish;3 they who were foolish having taken their lamps, did not take with themselves oil;4 and the prudent took oil in their vessels, with their lamps.5 `And the bridegroom tarrying, they all nodded and were sleeping,6 and in the middle of the night a cry was made, Lo, the bridegroom doth come; go ye forth to meet him.7 `Then rose all those virgins, and trimmed their lamps,8 and the foolish said to the prudent, Give us of your oil, because our lamps are going out;The virgins are talking with each other. They are in the same room.9 and the prudent answered, saying--Lest there may not be sufficient for us and you, go ye rather unto those selling, and buy for yourselves.10 `And while they are going away to buy, the bridegroom came, and those ready went in with him to the marriage-feasts, and the door was shut;The 5 foolish virgins returned to the same room but the door was shut11 and afterwards come also do the rest of the virgins, saying, Sir, sir, open to us;The groom was INSIDE the room. Maybe the wise virgins walked a mile to the groom with their lamps but that's not the point. They are now back in exactly the same place they were before. It's the groom that's at another place.So if that represents the rapture it isn't the wise going to Jesus but Jesus going to the wise....

A similar situation in this verse:YLTActs 2815 and thence, the brethren having heard the things concerning us, came forth to meet us, unto Appii Forum, and Three Taverns--whom Paul having seen, having given thanks to God, took courage.

Paul (the groom) came from Jerusalem. The believers (the 5 virgins) came from Rome (=the room) and took Paul back to Rome.

The whole point of meeting Jesus in the air is that the believer go to Jesus to escort Him back to earth.

Another verse that is used to support the idea that saints are raptured away before the tribulation starts:YLTRevelation 714 and I have said to him, `Sir, thou hast known;' and he said to me, `These are those who are coming out of the great tribulation, and they did wash their robes, and they made their robes white in the blood of the Lamb;==>The verse simply states they come out of it. Not that they escape it. In fact to come out of something you have to be in it.

Just read the blue parts of the verses below.YLTMatthew 2429 `And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken;30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth smite the breast, and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory;31 and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof.

Below another set of verse that is used to prove saints are raptured away. But proves the opposite...It are the ones that were eating, drinking and marrying that were took away by the flood. Not believer Noach.YLTMatthew 2437 and as the days of Noah--so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man;38 for as they were, in the days before the flood, eating, and drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage, till the day Noah entered into the ark,39 and they did not know till the flood came and took all away; so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man.40 Then two men shall be in the field, the one is received, and the one is left;

YLTGenesis 224 therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh.==> The groom leaves his parents not the bride...

The whole point of the so called rapture is that Jesus returns to earth to establish His kingdom. The overcomers see Him approaching and run to Him to walk Him to earth. Those who have a dog and where away a few days will understand that principle. The dog will celebrate the feast of barking Trumpets.

Logged

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Doug

You guys are really into the books and theological time tables ain't cha ? Ya all got any thing that is substantial and solid or do you guys just deal in supposition? Of course this is only my opinion>

Luke 3:1-21 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.

Why are all those persons mentioned?

No doubt it is a significant date, as it is connected with the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel.

At the end of the first two sections, Daniel said, the Messiah would appear. There are many schemes that attempt to show how it was fulfilled, using various start dates, and arriving at various times near the time of Christ. Some point to his birth, some to the start of his ministry, some to end of it.

The one that I think is the best begins with the decree of Cyrus in about 538 BC. The first section of seven weeks consists of seven weeks of leap years having 13 months. This section could be any of 131, 132, or 133 years, as in the Jewish and Babylonian calendar, the years with an extra month occur every 2 or 3 years.

The end of the first section, and the beginning of the second, could occur in 406 BC, and the second section most likely consists or 62 sabbatical cycles of the Jews, which is also "seven times" where a "time" is 62 years.

In this scheme, the first two sections of the seventy weeks came to an end in about 28 AD, in the precise time that Luke specified for the ministry of Jesus, and probably within a few months of the date he gave for the ministry of John the Baptist.

This seems to me to be fairly foolproof. It is a much superior interpretation, compared to that of the dispensationalists, such as that proposed by Sir William Anderson, with his spurious assumption of 360 day years, and his flawed calculations, that had to be revised by the professors at Dallas Theological Seminary, as they discovered that Anderson's calculation was wrong by as much as a year. And besides, it pointed to a date that seemed far too late to fit the criteria provided in the New Testament.

So while the scoffers may have had reason to sneer at Anderson's work, there is no reason to sneer at the evidence that I have provided above; if there is a flaw, let's hear where it lies. The fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy about the coming of Christ is substantial and solidproof of the Gospel.

You guys are really into the books and theological time tables ain't cha ? Ya all got any thing that is substantial and solid or do you guys just deal in supposition? Of course this is only my opinion>

Luke 3:1-21 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.

Why are all those persons mentioned?

No doubt it is a significant date, as it is connected with the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel.

I know Doug.It was a rethorical question. At least for me. But perhaps those that find dating events a total waste time it looks like a real question

Question to Micah, and other who think dating event is a waste of time:Luke 3:1-21 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.

Why, in your opion, did the HS inpire the names of those people?Why not for example: Jesus was baptised.

Imo the intention of HS was more that wasting paper, ink and time

Logged

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Doug

I have a simple question, all the great information (and it is a lot) on a "rapture," or "caught up" or "harpazō " is there any proof of this phenomenon taking place in the natural? Or is this a Charismatic and Fundamentalist interruption and assumption that this event will happen?

Holding my breath

Too late in the day for me (almost 5am.) So...just to mention a poorly translated verse to answer you. "The kingdom of God suffereth violence and the violent take (harpazo) it by force." Take here is the one N.T. example of harpazo being used concerning human activity. Men forcibly seize (harpazo) the kingdom. They possess (harpazo) it by force. If a gang of pirates came into town and, took by force whatever they desired as their own possession, this would be an examle of the use of the word harpazo.

Matthew 11:12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

A couple of points, that this Scripture suggests.

First, in this saying, Jesus evidently associated his ministry with that of John the Baptist.

This may be significant, in connection with determining the duration of his ministry. It is often said that his ministry spans three and a half years. This may work out if we include the ministry of John. Luke gives the date for the beginning of John's ministry. This suggests it is at least possible, and worth considering, that the first two sections of the 70 weeks came to an end, and the seventieth week began at the beginning of the ministry of John. Perhaps the three and a half years began then, and these were the first half of the seventieth week. This would explain the significance of the phrase, "from the days of John the Baptist until now..."

Secondly, about the violence that Jesus spoke of. It may be, that he was speaking of the violence that is involved in overcoming Satan, and not violence against others.

For example, Jesus said,

Matthew 5:29-30And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into gehenna.And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into gehenna.

These acts look like violence to me. Perhaps he meant them figuratively. Was it the violence he referred to in Matthew 11:12? Paul said,

Galatians 2:20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

To be "crucified" is rather violent. But this is certainly meant figuratively.

Galatians 5:24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

The same comment applies here. And similar things could be said about circumcision.

Philippians 3:3For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

This circumcision is figurative and spiritual, but the figure is somewhat violent.

Another example of spiritual "violence" is in Revelation 20.

Revelation 20:4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

To become "beheaded" is quite a violent figure, and may be the kind of violence Jesus referred to. IMO it is similar to the others mentioned above, and it is a metaphor representing submission to Christ.

Here is another comment about the "week" in which Christ confirms the covenant, the seventieth week. The whole age of the church is represented by a time, times and a half, or a symbolic three and a half years, to relate it to the first half week, the ministry of Jesus. In the last half week, Jesus continues to confirm the covenant, as he did when he was here on earth and gave his life for the church.

Doug

The mysteries contained in the book of Revelation are not understood by the natural mind. The great number and variety of interpretations attests to that. And the apostle Paul wrote: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." [1 Corinthians 2:14]

Some of the critical scholars supposed that they could obtain a superior understanding of prophecy, by learning Greek or Hebrew. They rejected the idea that the spirit of Christ was needed, to give them understanding, so they might properly interpret prophecy, which seems to be implied in Paul's statement above. They assumed that the Scriptures should be studied like any other ancient document, and that is what they taught. They stood aloof, as academics, and scholars, rather than believers. To believe in miracles, they said, is unscientific. And belief in inspiration was put in that category too. They sought the approval of other scholars. Their approach was typified by those Jews in the days of Antiochus IV, who wore Greek hats, and hid their circumcision, and admired the customs of the Greeks. These scholars took pride in the fact they were Gentiles, both in the flesh, and in spirit.

Is knowledge of Greek or Hebrew really the key to understanding the prophecies? Hardly; the experts do not agree. These scholars are found on opposite sides, in almost every significant issue. On the interpretation of Revelation 20, the scholars are divided. Some support Premillennialism, some Amillenniasm, some Postmillennialism. There is also something called Bi-millennialism.

Bi-millennialism was supported by John Wesley.

Wesley followed the views of Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752), author of Exegetical Annotations on the New Testament or the "Gnomon."

Bengel supported the idea of a literal thousand year reign, after the return of Christ, and the destruction of the beast. It was he who made it "respectable." Bengel vigorously opposed and attacked the older view that said the thousand year reign was a time when the church would enjoy prolonged tranquility on the earth.

Wesley quoted extensively from Bengel's works in his writings on prophecy. But Wesley's view that there were two millenniums said that there would be a thousand years in which "the promises concerning the flourishing state of the Church" would be fulfilled, followed by another thousand years when the saints reigned in heaven, while "men on earth will be careless and secure."

Each of the two thousand year periods were invisible and they could not be discerned by men on earth. He said, "The small time, and the second thousand years, begin at the same point, immediately after the first thousand. But neither the beginning of the first, nor of the second thousand, will be known to the men upon earth, as both the imprisonment of Satan and his loosing are transacted in the invisible world."

Wesley's idea might be viewed as an attempt at a compromise, between the two theories, (1) that of Bengel, which equates more to Premillennialism, and (2) the more traditional view of Postmillennialism.

Most theories of the Millennium view the thousand years as universal, applying to the whole world at the same time, which is a normal and natural way to understand time. But I have suggested that the number is symbolic, and the thousand years applies to individuals, and is personal rather than universal. Everyone who believes the gospel, has been assigned a figurative "thousand years," and an earnest of the Spirit, and Christ has said, "occupy till I come." [Luke 19:13] The reign of the saints with Christ is that part of their lives during the present age, in which they yield to Him as their Lord, which is represented figuratively by "beheading" in Revelation 20:4.

The view that I have outlined does not fit the usual categories, Premillennialism, Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism. Perhaps another label could be used for it, such as "discrete Millennialism."

Sorry Doug . . but for me, you're totally contradicting yourself with this one. On the one end you go into great detail piecing together natural events with spiritual prophecies . . .then you turn around and say that the mysteries of Revelation can not be understood by the natural mind. Your entire thesis isn't any different from the traditions of men who also perceive that the things in Daniel, Matthew 24 and Revelation are all speaking to a time yet to come . . .death, doom and gloom . . .it's all about destruction of men. Your rendition is merely another arrow in the quiver with all the others out there isn't it? Where is life in yours? Where's the celebration? Where's the resurrection of life, truth . . .where's the effects of the cross?

It's as if the cross didn't exist. We lay claim that where sin is, grace abounds even more . . .while at the same time, we also declare that in the end, God is going to bring in his mop bucket and slaughter all of the sinful people. So which is it going to be? Grace? Or Destruction?

Logged

Doug

Sorry Doug . . but for me, you're totally contradicting yourself with this one. On the one end you go into great detail piecing together natural events with spiritual prophecies . . .then you turn around and say that the mysteries of Revelation can not be understood by the natural mind. Your entire thesis isn't any different from the traditions of men...

Nathan does not demonstrate that anything that I wrote is contradictory. Neither does he offer any alternative explanation of the thousand years, or the time periods mentioned by Daniel.

Preterists are notorious for switching their positions. Witness Firmin Abauzit, Robert Townley, and Philip S. Desprez, all of whom recanted, after publishing preterist books. In recent years, several prominent preterists have recanted. Todd Dennis, author of the Preterist Archive website, abandoned preterism, and embraced idealism.

The thousand years is especially difficult item for preterism. It seems to span too great a time, to fit into the first century. Many preterists want everything in prophecy to refer to things in the past, so they can say all prophecy has been fulfilled already, and they cram as much of the book Revelation as they can, into the first century.

There is much variety in their interpretive schemes. Some preterists are Amillennial, some Postmillennial. Moses Stuart seems to have retained a tentative belief in a future Millennium.

James Stuart Russell, writing about Revelation 20, said, "we do not pretend to feel any confidence in the latter portion of our exegesis." He put the binding of Satan and the thousand year reign of the saints in the future, and said "This we believe to be the sole instance in the whole book of an excursion into distant futurity; and we are disposed to regard the whole parenthesis as relating to matters still future and unfilfilled." [The Parousia, 1878. p. 523]

Russell suggested that Revelation 20:7-10 could be viewed as a "parenthesis" in the prophecy. That is a bit like cutting those verses out from the book, which Revelation 22:19 warns people not to do. "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

What confidence can one have in such tenuous opinions? Incredibly, R. C. Sproul seems to have based much of his book promoting preterism on the writings of Russell. According to a reviewer of The Last Days Acccording to Jesus by R.C. Sproul, [Baker Book House, 2000.] "This position is known as orthodox or partial preterism; however, Dr. Sproul refers extensively to the writings of a hyper-preterist James Stuart Russell. Although he clearly distances himself from hyper-preterism - which is a damnable heresy that insists that the resurrection and final judgement took place in 70 A.D., consequently, it denies the resurrection of the body (if this is right then the Christian faith is useless 1 Cor. 15:12-58) which is part of Biblical salvation - I would seriously question the wisdom of referring so much to the works of a heretic."

On the Preterist Archive site, Samuel Lee (1783-1852), Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, is called "Number One All-Time Preterist." One writer says: "Lee teaches that 'the prophecies of the Apocalypse' -- and everywhere else in the Bible -- have 'already been fulfilled.'" And, "Lee builds nearly everything around the seventy weeks of Daniel 9, not as a definite chronological term but as an indefinite period. He makes the three and a half times of Daniel 7 coincident with the last of Daniel's seventy mystical weeks, and comprehends within it the two catastrophes - first the fall of Jerusalem and the reprobate Jewish nation, and then the heathen Roman as God's instrument for desolating Jerusalem. So the three and a half times is the last half of Daniel's seventieth week. [1851 ed, pp. 69,70]"

Lee presented his views in: The Events and Times of the Visions of Daniel and St. John.

In this work, Lee identified the little horn of Daniel 7 with heathen Rome.

In Lee's scheme, the 70th week of Daniel 9:24-27 extended from the resurrection of Jesus to the destruction of Rome, and it was divided into two parts. The first part extended to the destruction of Jerusalem. The period from the resurrection of Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem, Lee said, was the thousand years of Revelation 20. The period from the destruction of Jerusalem to the fall of Rome, he said, was Daniel's time, times and a half, the second half of the 70th week.

On the meaning of the thousand years of Revelation 20:2-9, he wrote, [pp. 42-43]Now we know of no instance whatever, in which the saints were to be given into the hand of Satan, or his Agent the Antichrist, but that in which the Little Horn should make war with them and prevail for a time, times and a half. Scripture knows of no other, how differently soever it may have expressed itself on this: and the period of this we have already determined to be, the latter mystical portion of Daniel's seventieth week. But, according to the place just cited, this must come immediately after the thousand years', or millenial, reign of the saints; and if so, then also must this millenium itself have been the former portion of this week: that is, the period which elapsed from the resurrection of Christ to the fall of Jerusalem; and, therefore, Satan must have been so bound during this period.

In a footnote he says, referring to the war of the Little Horn against the saints:But this war must, of necessity, be that spoken of in Rev. xi. 7, and this, again, must be that which should be made by the Little Horn: but this Little Horn symbolized heathen Rome. Here again, ver. 3, the witnesses were to prophecy 1260 days: i.e. before this war should be made against them: this 1260 days must, therefore, mark the period of the Apostolic preaching, i. e. up to the fall of Jerusalem; for soon after this the persecution of the Roman power began. And, accordingly, this 1260 days cannot but mark the period designated above by 1000 years. Again, ver. 9, these witnesses are to be considered as dead for three and a-half days: i.e. after the fall of Jerusalem: but this period is designated in ver. 2 by forty-two months: each of these numbers, therefore, necessarily marks the last portion of Daniel's seventieth week: and, accordingly, when this has expired (ver. 15) the kingdom under the whole heaven has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ; and this is to continue for ever. See a repetition of this in ch. xii. 6--12. Again, 1260 days are assigned to the woman in the wilderness; but in verse 1 4 this period is a time, times, and a-half: i. e. three and a-half. These two designations must, therefore, mark the same period: i. e. from the fall of Jerusalem to the end of Daniel's seventieth week: and this is given as three and a-half days, as just noticed. Again, ch. xiii. 5, 6, the Beast blasphemes God: i. e. Daniel's Little Horn, (ch. vii. viii.) and this for forty- two months: i. e. as before, during the last mystical three and a-half days of Daniel's last week. But this Little Horn was heathen Rome, and during this period (ch. xi. 2) Jerusalem was to be trodden down of the Gentiles: and at the close of it this Little Horn, heathen Rome, was to fall, and then it did fall.

Referring to 2 Peter 3:8, Lee wrote: [pp. 44-45]

The term a thousand years, put for a day, and vice versa, shews, beyond all doubt, that this could be no chronological period; and, from the particulars here brought before us, it must have designated the period, within which St. Peter and his coadjutors possessed the power to cast out devils, and to trample upon all the power of the enemy (Satan), who had been so bound by Christ, that he could by no means touch or injure their spiritual rule, or victorious warfare. They, and their fellow-labourers did, therefore, thus rule and reign with Christ during this mystical thousand years; and, when this came to its close, they were delivered into the hand of the Little Horn, to try, to purify, and to refine them, even to the end: and St. John lived long enough to experience his full share, first in this rule; and secondly, in the persecution following it. This, therefore, is of necessity the Apocalyptic Millennium: i.e. of spiritual rule, progress, and victory; for this is its true spiritual character. And so the Apostles virtually tell us; for although they died daily, yet they lived; and although poor, and were as the off-scouring of all things, yet, in a spiritual point of view, as kings they reigned, and they possessed all things.

But this Millennium was, as we have seen, to be followed, -- and actually was followed, -- by a period of persecution and most severe trial. We have seen also when it ended. St. John further informs us, that, from and after this time -- i.e. necessarily after this Millennium -- the saints should reign for ever and ever (chap. xxii. 5): i.e. as a royal Priesthood in the everlasting kingdom of the Son of Man: for this kingdom has no end in the language of prophecy, while in that of doctrine it has: viz. when the Archangel shall descend, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, and the Saints then remaining shall be changed in a moment, and caught up to meet the Lord in the air; but, be it observed, these are not the last times, days, &c, of prophecy.

We have, then, this permanent reign of the Saints falling within a period, considerably removed from the Millennium of St. John: it cannot, therefore, be the same reign; it must necessarily be another, altogether exempt from Millennial considerations: and that, which shall continue to the consummation of things: and hence, it must follow, that the Millennial doctrines current among us, are not only groundless, but, in effect, contrary and opposed to those of Holy Writ. They are Jewish and false, and such, therefore, as every Christian is bound to reject. That the Jews were to be restored within St John's Millennium is certainly true; and the fact is, they were so restored: but this was only in that holy prophetic Remnant, to whom the promises of restoration had always been made. All this has, therefore, been fulfilled to the very letter!

Once more, the Angel now, i. e. within St John's Millennial period, tells him that these "things must shortly be done:" i.e. completed: the next verse adds (7), "Behold, I come quickly." Verse 16 will enable us to see what was meant by this, in, "Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand." In Daniel (xii. 4) it is said, "Seal the book even to the time of the end." But this interval could not be less than about 530 years, which (ch. x. 14) is said to be "for many days:" it was therefore then, not at hand: but St John tells us that, in his days, the time was at hand, which should seem to imply a period less than that of 530 years. Now, however, 1800 years have past, and yet, according to some, this time said to be then at hand, has not arrived. Is not this strange? And these are the Interpreters who tell us, that the literal sense is to be taken! I conclude here, therefore, that the period and character of St John's Millennium, are sufficiently determinate, and determinable.

But it may be asked, Have we then nothing like a Millennium to expect? Have the Prophets shut us up, without grounds for expecting better things, than the world and the Church have generally witnessed? I answer, certainly they have not: they have foretold, -- and certainly the faithfulness of God has established, -- a system which, if duly put to the test, is equal to all that the deepest piety, or warmest philanthropy, can reasonably wish for or expect.

Some proofs of this have of late years been presented to us, in the Emancipation of the West-Indian Slaves; in the Christianizing of the South-Sea Islands, and in the vast multitudes daily brought into the Church in various parts of the world: and in these, all have seen an exact counterpart, but without miracle, of what primitive Christianity effected; and this even under the deadening influence of Jewish and Millennarian speculations. But, give to Christianity its potency and purity; cast to the winds the sad incumbrances so imprudently laid upon it, and the face of the world shall again present, and permanently maintain, the glorious victories of its earliest times. In principle, every Lion shall, as a Believer, have been made to lie down with the Lamb; and every Church, in which our crystal-like cleansing river is found to flow, shall find within its own streets, and on its banks, that tree of life which has been planted there, for the preservation of its own spiritual life, and for the healing and sustenance of that of Heathen. And this is, indeed, the drift and object of all its teaching. Its doctrines are the pure dictates of the Spirit, and their faithful inculcation has ever been accompanied, and rendered effectual, by His power.

And can a restoration of the Jews, or the arrival of a Jewish Millennium, really add any thing more potent to this? Light minds,-- which are ever pleased with trifles, -- may think so, and may place great confidence in the delusion, as it has too long been the case among us; while all who can feel, that there is a complete and finished work in the Gospel, and that all prophecy gives its powerful testimony to this, must, of necessity, think otherwise. Great, indeed, and admirable may have been the ingenuity, and, I doubt not, the piety of many who have laboured to produce this widely prevailing delusion, and who have been favoured with but too much encouragement and success; still, he who prefers the simple Word of God as plainly put forth in the New Testament, to the plausible additions of human ingenuity; and Apostolical Christianity in its spirit and power, to the alluring figments of Jewish artifice and superstition, will choose rather to walk by the faith so laid before him, than by the sight so vainly and groundlessly recommended in an earthly Jerusalem restored, or a visionary Canaan to be re-peopled by mere carnally descended Jews.

Lee's identification of the Little Horn with heathen Rome must be rejected, as in Daniel 7, the Roman empire is represented by the fourth beast, which had ten horns. He misinterpret the 70th week, as it is the week in which Christ confirms the covenant with many, of which Paul said, "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:" [Romans 15:8] The covenant includes the promises made to Abraham, that have been inherited by Christ. [2 Corinthians 1:20] This includes the land promise.

Daniel says that the Little Horn would "think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." [Daniel 7:25] The times the horn seeks to change must be the times mentioned in prophecy, and their true meaning.

The horn has "eyes like the eyes of a man" which I suggest, represents a human point of view. The great variety of opinions about the time, times and a half, the 70 weeks, the thousand years, etc., are due to, and are collectively "a human point of view" and so are represented by the "Little Horn." In Revelation 12:14-15, the phrase "a time, times and a half" links this prophecy with Daniel 7:25. Incidentally, that would identify the "Little Horn" of Daniel 7 with Satan in Revelation 12. The "time, times and a half" is also mentioned in Daniel 12:7, where it is said that it extends to the end of the age.

In Revelation 12:15-16, a "flood" from the mouth of the serpent, that threatens to carry away the woman, gets swallowed up, when the earth opens her mouth. Here, I suggest, the earth corresponds to the "land," as in the "promised land." But the "promised land" for the saints is a heavenly country, Hebrews 11:16. It is symbolic of the spiritual promises to the saints, one of which is the promise of Jesus, that the spirit will guide the church into the truth. [John 16:13] No doubt this includes the correct interpretation of prophecy. This, I think, is the meaning of the land or earth, that swallows up the serpent's flood. Since this flood is evidently of a spiritual nature, being a flood of flawed interpretations and wrong beliefs, it is destroyed by the truth, and disappears like a flood that is swallowed up by fissures in the ground.

Nathan does not demonstrate that anything that I wrote is contradictory. Neither does he offer any alternative explanation of the thousand years, or the time periods mentioned by Daniel

Because Nathan has already been over this and has already "demonstrated" other alternative explanations in the past. The thousand year reign is no more a literal event yet to happen any more than did Jesus literally rebuild the temple that he said he's raise up in three days. The thousand year reign is pertaining to the holy of holies . . .as is everything else Revelation eludes to. It's connected to our relationship in the REST of the Sabbath . . .

Daniel's prophecies unfolded when the entire religious system of the old covenant was completely over-run by the Romans and destroyed . . .the seventy weeks ended the day Stephen became the "first" martyr. From that time on, the time set aside for the Jews came to an end and the time of the Gentiles . . .to which Paul's ministry was specifically toward . . .had begun.

The thing here is though, you're attempt to negate a preterist is presumptuous in thinking that "your" idealism is the the only accurate rendering when the truth is, there are just as many gaps in one as there are in the other. Much of what you're sharing seems to be words of another man . . . is there not anything spiritually discerned by you as an individual? Laying all the knowledge of information you've accumulated aside, what remains? What has God revealed to you directly? If God is love, why the destruction of those Love created from the beginning?

For me, the relevancy of these prophecies are not what we take away naturally, but what we are able to discern within each of us spiritually. The thousand year rule and reigning for me is an internal experience each of us experience as Christ matures us into these truths.

Doug

Nathan does not demonstrate that anything that I wrote is contradictory. Neither does he offer any alternative explanation of the thousand years, or the time periods mentioned by Daniel

Because Nathan has already been over this and has already "demonstrated" other alternative explanations in the past. The thousand year reign is no more a literal event yet to happen any more than did Jesus literally rebuild the temple that he said he's raise up in three days. The thousand year reign is pertaining to the holy of holies . . .as is everything else Revelation eludes to. It's connected to our relationship in the REST of the Sabbath . . .

I would not disagree, that "the thousand year reign is pertaining to the holy of holies" as was suggested previously in this thread. However I have further elaborated that the thousand years is "discrete" and applies to individuals. And so I proposed the label "discrete Millennialism" for my interpretation, as an alternative to the labels Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism, none of which seem quite appropriate for it.

In discrete Millennialism, the beheading mentioned in Revelation 20:4 is a metaphor depicting submission to God. Just as beheading applies to individuals, in a similar fashion discrete Millennialism applies to individuals. Paul says all believers are raised up, and "sit together in heavenly places in Christ." What else could that be, but reigning with Christ?

Believers are said to be sealed with the holy Spirit. According to Paul, those who have the seal of Christ depart from iniquity. Saints who are figuratively beheaded reign with Christ. John calls this a thousand year reign, as the number thousand is often associated with the saints.

Daniel 7:10A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

The lives of the saints in the present age are "discrete Millenniums." Each begins and ends at various times.

Peter said with God a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day.

The thousand years of the saints' reigning with Christ is a "watch in the night." The present age is called a night, but the saints are "children of the day." The time a believer remains in this world is a "watch." All believers are warned of the need to "watch." For those who fall away, and become apostate, and cease to watch, their discrete millennial reigns come to an end prematurely. When that happens, Satan is no longer bound for them, and is no longer restrained in a prison. He is loosed from his prison, and deceives them. They turn against the camp of the saints and the beloved city. This has happened to some, throughout the course of the church's history. There are some examples in the New Testament.

Those who are beheaded, and reign with Christ, and endure to the end, are not affected by the second death, which is the lake of fire.

Discrete Millennialism borrows from and replaces other kinds of millennialism, and it is also a potential cure for preterism.

Daniel's prophecies unfolded when the entire religious system of the old covenant was completely over-run by the Romans and destroyed . . .the seventy weeks ended the day Stephen became the "first" martyr. From that time on, the time set aside for the Jews came to an end and the time of the Gentiles . . .to which Paul's ministry was specifically toward . . .had begun.

Can we assume the 70 weeks of Daniel ended, but that none of the apostles noticed? Would not that imply that the Spirit was negligent for not revealing it to them? Or that the apostles of the Lord were incompetent, for not including some record of it in the NT? More likely, I think, they were watching for the end of the 70th week, but they finally concluded that it would not occur in their lifetime. Preterists usually misinterpret "this generation" and say that it means all prophecy must be fulfilled in the first century, but when Jesus mentioned "this generation," he included himself in it. And he remains alive, so his generation still exists to this day.

The New Testament says nothing that would connect the death of Stephen with the ending of the 70th week. Besides, the death of Stephen must have been quite soon after the crucifixion, within a year or two at the most, as shown earlier in this thread. See replies #142, 152, 154. There was no literal three and a half years after the crucifixion that could have fulfilled the 70th week. We are still in that week today, and Christ still confirms his covenant! The preterist idea that the 70th week ended in obscurity misses the fact that Jesus fulfills his covenant with many during the whole age of the church. The last half-week of the 70th week applies to the heavenly Jerusalem, not the earthly one. The earthly Jerusalem is represented by Hagar the Egyptian, who was cast out of Abraham's house. [See Galatians 4:24-26] Jerusalem was raised up, to heaven, when Jesus ascended, as described in Acts 1, and so fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 2:1-3. The preterists appear to be blind to this.

The portion of the 70th week that applies to the heavenly city is not fulfilled in terms of earth days, earth months, earth years, or earth time of any sort, as the heavenly Jerusalem is spiritual. Earthly units of time and linear dimensions do not apply to it.

The thing here is though, you're attempt to negate a preterist is presumptuous in thinking that "your" idealism is the the only accurate rendering when the truth is, there are just as many gaps in one as there are in the other. Much of what you're sharing seems to be words of another man . . . is there not anything spiritually discerned by you as an individual? Laying all the knowledge of information you've accumulated aside, what remains? What has God revealed to you directly? If God is love, why the destruction of those Love created from the beginning?

For me, the relevancy of these prophecies are not what we take away naturally, but what we are able to discern within each of us spiritually. The thousand year rule and reigning for me is an internal experience each of us experience as Christ matures us into these truths.

I think "discrete Millennialism" is new terminology. Have you ever heard of it before? The thousand year reign is discrete, as it applies to individuals. I agree that you could call it an internal experience for each of us.

Can we assume the 70 weeks of Daniel ended, but that none of the apostles noticed? Would not that imply that the Spirit was negligent for not revealing it to them? Or that the apostles of the Lord were incompetent, for not including some record of it in the NT? More likely, I think, they were watching for the end of the 70th week, but they finally concluded that it would not occur in their lifetime. Preterists usually misinterpret "this generation" and say that it means all prophecy must be fulfilled in the first century, but when Jesus mentioned "this generation," he included himself in it. And he remains alive, so his generation still exists to this day.

I think there's too much reasoning in all of this. Just because the apostles didn't see it doesn't have anything to do with it unfolding . . .Matthew 24 "was" Jesus telling them, he even directly referred to Daniel's prophecy "to" them. It's not because it wasn't shared, it was because it wasn't heard. Nor was it seen. That's why Paul refers to spiritual principles as "mysteries". And I've seen many superimpose the "this generation" clause for a 2000 gap but it's not fitting at all.

First of all, when Daniel wrote his book, he was told to seal it up because it wasn't for HIS GENERATION . . . this is indicating that IF what Jesus was saying wasn't for THEIR generation, he would have specified such. But instead, he was telling them PLAINLY that THEY were the ones that were going to see those things unfold. It was all connected with the removal of the levitical system that is the core of the old covenant so he could make way for the Melkezedek lineage to be established. Their rejection of the cross and their rejection to let go of the levitical system is what led to their own demise. It really does have noting to do with us literally . .. but everything to do with us spiritually.

The 1000 years could be used for a second harvest for Christians. In many ways the second coming of Christ(or third coming if you count he returns before greatribulation) parallels the imagery of the 1000 year millenium reign.

For example Jesus says to the Jews ye shall be hated of all nations.

In God and Magog rev20 all the nations are gathered to destroy the holy city restored Jerusalem.

So if this is true it does explain the logic behind it. That God desires another harvest of people, before sending the disobedient into the lake of fire.

But I still press in on the fact that at the end of the book, John was told to leave the book open . . .Daniel was told to seal his up because it wasn't for his time . . .John was told to leave his open because the time for those things to unfold had already begun. there is no indication that the things happening would continue happening for another 2000 years . . in fact, it stated that the time would be cut short . . . yet people want to stretch it all the way across from "that" generation to this one, 2000 years removed. The events people interpret here are almost always tied into death and destruction. As people who believe God wouldn't send his loved created beings into a state of eternal torment, we're okay with a God calling forth our existence for our own destruction in the end? Point being, I still contend that God is not destroying men, but he's destroying man in men.